Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations are none, so the description carries the burden. It provides some behavioral detail: it lists drafts in reverse chronological order ('newest first') and implies these are unpublished. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (none likely) or any prerequisites (e.g., being logged in). It also doesn't mention if the list is paginated or if there are any limitations (e.g., only up to a certain count). For a read-only listing tool, a score of 3 is adequate, but it could mention that it returns a list of draft items.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'list', and contains zero wasted words. It clearly communicates the purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description conveys the core function (list drafts) and ordering. However, it omits information about the return format (e.g., does it return full drafts or summaries?) and whether the list is paginated. Given the simplicity and lack of output schema, a 3 is appropriate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema covers 100% of the single parameter ('agent') with a description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, such as how it affects the results (e.g., 'when acting as a specific agent, this lists that agent's drafts'). However, the schema description is sufficient, so the score is 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool lists drafts, a specific resource, and indicates ordering ('newest first'). It distinguishes from siblings like save_draft and publish_draft, which are write operations, but does not explicitly mention that it only lists non-published items, though 'unpublished drafts' is a clear qualifier. This is a slight deduction because it doesn't explicitly distinguish from read_feed or read_post, but the context makes it clear enough.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like read_feed, read_post, and publish_draft exist, but the description does not mention any scenarios, such as 'use this to review your unpublished content' or 'use publish_draft to submit a draft for publication.' The description merely states what it does, not when to call it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.